Re: The U.K. Election thread

[Basil]

Not now, that was changed by the same piece of legislation that introduced fixed-term Parliaments.

[beamer]

Does a no confidence vote really require a two thirds majority? That would risk a stalemate wih no functioning government going on for years, though I think there might be some sort of clause that if nobody gets a Queen's Speech through in a certain period of time there is another election.

[taipan]

Not now, that was changed by the same piece of legislation that introduced fixed-term Parliaments.

Not sure if that's the best idea I have ever heard.

[beamer]

Well, it stops the old practice of a PM calling an election at the most beneficial time for his/her party. Although five years is too long, four like the Yanks do would make more sense.

[JGK]

5 years will seem like an eternity if there is a minority government.

[taipan]

Well, it stops the old practice of a PM calling an election at the most beneficial time for his/her party. Although five years is too long, four like the Yanks do would make more sense.

For once the Seppos have it right. A lot of their congress also have to be re-elected at the mid terms.

[Lindsay no.2]

We have a lot of meeja pap. As I suppose do most countries.


L#2: I'll wait to see what the giant crash-splash headline is supposed to portend.

It's strange there seems no mention at all of this trail in The Independent - the i's mother ship and agonisingly worthy paper. Which is a lot bigger and more comprehensive, so you might expect some sign of the same story there.

Which makes me wonder if the i is desperately trumpeting some sort of scoop for itself, which may be more trumpet than tune. (> pap from the news mill.)You're correct, that is distinctly possible - headlines are quite often misleading - ref our discussion on Steve Smith and The Ashes from the other day.

Despite that scepticism, shouldn't prejudge, I suppose (.... unlike 80-90% of the national press in England).

Maybe Miliband WILL now hunt down Dave with one of the Tories' back-stabbing knives. Or throw one of Lynton's 'dead cats' on to Cam's country supper table. Or indeed, go and bomb out the cities of Britain. (Boris's own Crosby-dead-cat line.)


Simplifying to two extremes a "nasty-turning" which, if it happens, is probably going to be somewhere between the two.

> If "getting nasty" means Miliband forswears a borderline-angelic forbearance, in order explicitly, semi-brutally to set the warped record straight (or rather, a whole bloody warped record collection): no bad thing. Overdue, even.If 'setting the record straight' involves getting personal/nasty then doesn't that almost by default mean that he has to resort to the level you mention in the para below. Otherwise just 'setting the record straight' by saying 'No, my Dad doesn't hate England' and 'No I didn't knife my brother in the back' is something he's previously done and doesn't contain any overt or covert nastiness that I can see.

> If it means he descends to Cameron's - sorry, CROSBY's - level: then not just dispiriting, but idiotic. Because when it comes to flinging shit, Crosby's crew have much greater tonnage of it, all pre-paid. And Murdoch & Dacre & the rest of such rogue barons too, lending continued fanatical ideological support with an endless barrage of their toxic crap.It would indeed appear to be idiotic, if for no other reason than it doesn't seem to be a vote winner.


I *have* seen stories of local zealotry by some cross-brained Labour activists, which are a bit depressing. (Nowhere near the crazed level or systematic nature of frenzy shown by the more prominent SNP faithful, but still.) But without condoning those  in any way, the consistent depth to which the Tories have fought foul (apart from certain mendacities) has deliberate raked up the pitch and lowered the standards of the whole game as their best strategy to win in England, and assist the SNP in Scotland despite the mutual loathing between Tories and SNP. The Tories are so lame it's embarrassing. Bear in mind they couldn't even win an outright majority last time up when they were going up against a government which notionally presided over the financial crisis. That's how inept they are.

Important to try something better, less disreputable than that: not only for the sake of the odour of politics, but because Labour are always held to a higher ethical standard (which of course is a cross to bear - any slip seized on by the barons and their parliamentary representatives). Labour are always held to higher ethical standard by whom? The electorate?

The problem of course is, it is difficult to attempt to be somewhat more principled, and set sights slightly higher, if this means you have to keep turning all four cheeks: to a bunch of entitled-to-rule bovver boys, bent on power at any moral cost. (Hiring Crosby as their jealous mastermind is evidence enough of this.)

The entitled to rule mentality of the toff-type Tories is pretty revolting. But let's not kid ourselves that Labour doesn't have its own version of that...they come at it from a slightly different point of view, there's is more borne out of presumed intellectual superiority rather than we're rich ergo we rule

All good stuff Peter - I threw some proper, as well as juvenile, comments in bold in your post. Looking forward to your reply to those.

[Lindsay no.2]

Does a no confidence vote really require a two thirds majority? That would risk a stalemate wih no functioning government going on for years, though I think there might be some sort of clause that if nobody gets a Queen's Speech through in a certain period of time there is another election.

So pretty much as per the last 4 years then, right? ;-)

[lardbucket]

The entitled to rule mentality of the toff-type Tories is pretty revolting. But let's not kid ourselves that Labour doesn't have its own version ... borne out of presumed intellectual superiority rather than 'we're rich ergo we rule'

The nadir of both political wings, in a nutshell.

[horace]

Not now, that was changed by the same piece of legislation that introduced fixed-term Parliaments.

Not sure if that's the best idea I have ever heard.

a bit like quotas Taips?

[Bradman]

Fixed term parliaments doesn't necessarily mean fixed term governments. You'll probably just see a couple or PMs over the course of a parliament. This is nothing to worry about. The same thing happens in places like PNG. Fiji, Upper Volta, the People's Democratic Republic of San Kcukmub and Waddamesistan.

[Merlin]

So, is it true that a coalition of SNP and Labour is most likely?

When asked for their respective responses to your question by the various media ...
the answers were most enlightening,

Millipede (Labour) : No Comment.

The Virgin Sturgeon (SNP) : We will control Labour's spending and bring more revenue into Scotland.

Millipede : No comment ... well, perhaps there could be an arrangement on a vote by vote basis.

Virgin : We will control Labour's spending and bring more revenue into Scotland.

You make your mind up.

PS - It is now more than likely that Labour will be wiped out north of the border ( 41 seats) by the SNP.

[PeterCS]

That set of "responses" is complete cobbled-up baloney, Merls: and you know it.

Miliband has ruled out coalition, and any sort of "deal" at all, with the SNP - several times, emphatically.

Such that Crosby's minions - and Nige Farage, for his own reasons - and Sturgeon, for the SNP's own reasons - are now pushing the opposite porky, that he'd rather let the Tories in ... because he's so weak/democratic/stubborn/(add preferred slur here).

"You can't have it both ways" - unless, that is, you are an unscrupulous, truth-detesting propagandist.


You might also address the bombardment of "dead cats", calculated deceit and sewage fired out of CCHQ on a daily, or rather hourly basis. Just one example:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/tory-small-businesses-letter-written-5593689

And such gross deceit as detailed in the following - you may try to discredit this too, but look for a moment at the detailed evidence. These were planted Tory activists, masquerading as "undecided voters", to circumvent the system of TV crowd balance, and con viewers into thinking they have just been convinced by the weight of argument, rather than being diehard propagandists in the first place.

http://labourlist.org/2015/05/about-that-question-time-audience/


As regards your PS: that part may well yet be true. Finally something you are saying that has some foundation in evidence (the evidence of polls).

That is, of course, a separate issue from your main baseless assault on truth - and has causes and reasons we might go into separately, if that's what you would like.


Finally: I have a hunch you are shuffling together a "bugger all that - let's just see who wins at the ballot box, eh?" point. That's the SNP's line - confusing might with right, and "ends" with "means", engaging in vilification as if this were justified (in short, whatever gross moral turpitude it takes, doesn't matter - it's all about winning, and dominating). I have to say, history would suggest that any victory gained by such methods does not bode well for the honesty or quality of the rule that follows it.

But my point is not about triumphalism, or chest-beating. What matters to me is the deceit, the manipulation, the lies - as against acceptable levels of civil conduct and social decency, reasonable standards of integrity, demonstrable dedication to country and not simply career (*), and what in the end - really - is good for the population of a society. Crosby is a contemptible mercenary who shows none of the latter but plenty of the former: and he is jealous chief strategist and Indoctrinator General of your Party. All the puppets in a row spout his script, again and again - for example:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-04-30/strong-commands-from-hq-send-tories-into-a-spin-over-cameron

(*)- Freudian slip ....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2n0p_60vOyg&list=PL3ZQ5CpNulQnkOivxzcEfwiU8pljmGhA6&index=2

[Winkle Spinner]

Considering how on top of propaganda they've been in general during this government the Tories' campaign has been so woeful and badly judged a part of me is wondering if they're deliberately trying to chuck this election (as quietly as possible of course) because they suspect we're due another big crash in the next five years (nothing that caused the last one has really been fixed) and would rather not be in charge while it happens. Either that or they just genuinely are so out of touch they think this is actually the best way to get into power.

[Lindsay no.2]

That 'career defining' slip was a goodie Peter.

Cameron is such a bell-end. With his rolled up sleeves, I've had fifty five coffees and am psyched about this election schtick. Amateur effort at being pumped Dave, you need to take it up a notch...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvsboPUjrGc

[Lindsay no.2]

Considering how on top of propaganda they've been in general during this government the Tories' campaign has been so woeful and badly judged a part of me is wondering if they're deliberately trying to chuck this election (as quietly as possible of course) because they suspect we're due another big crash in the next five years (nothing that caused the last one has really been fixed) and would rather not be in charge while it happens. Either that or they just genuinely are so out of touch they think this is actually the best way to get into power.

They aren't that cunning Winkle. I think your last words are spot-on.

Bear in mind that this bunch of nerks weren't even able to get a majority last time up when they were going up against the Labour government who were being held accountable for the UK financial crash. That's how inept they are.

[Winkle Spinner]

It's just bizarre. The figureheads might actually be that stupid but I find it hard to believe the shadowy figures behind the scenes aren't bursting with low cunning - you don't get to run a country otherwise, good family or not.

Maybe we should just swap parliament and the ECB? Could be a good laugh.

[beamer]

Well, Labour clearly have a leader who the electorate see as a liability rather than an asset... if Miliband takes power, especially in a weak minority administration, it could put the Tories in a very strong position next time. On the other hand, five more years of a Cameron-led coalition and a fresh Labour leader who connects with the voting public better, well we could see a Blair-style landslide next time.

Good election to lose, in a way, even before you consider economic prospects - the leaders obviously won't see it that way, but others in their parties might.

[JGK]

So, the Royal Baby must be good for the Tories?

[beamer]

Yeah, and maybe even UKIP...

[Lindsay no.2]

It's just bizarre. The figureheads might actually be that stupid but I find it hard to believe the shadowy figures behind the scenes aren't bursting with low cunning - you don't get to run a country otherwise, good family or not.

Maybe we should just swap parliament and the ECB? Could be a good laugh.

I'm sure the behind the scenes guys do have a degree of cunning - but the problem seems to be that their political masters have no real ideas or plans that would allow them to signal anything positive to the electorate. That then leaves precious little else for the behnd the scenes guys to do other than get down and dirty. Or, the alternative point of view, which Peter may espouse (and may well be totally correct) is that the Tories have handed over their keys to Crosby and he only knows one way to play.

I used to think high level politicians and high level corporate types must all be terribly clever. Then after having worked with those types for several years I came to revise my thinking.

[Merlin]

Good grief Petey ... fourteen paragraphs to not answer my "responses" !

The Virgin IS on record as saying exactly what I stated above.
Basically - curbing Labours spending and focusing on adding wealth to the Scottish people.
And that would be before she called for another referendum across the Border to break up the Union!

I really can't be arsed to dig around the websites (as you so energetically do!) to prove the point -
other than saying - I didn't dream her response up.
Furthermore - do you honestly believe the Millipede when he denies the probability
of getting into bed with the Virgin?
You must either be an avid (or is it rabid) Socialist or else totally naïve to believe that Eddie
will not do anything  - whether underhanded or not - to ensure getting the keys to No 10.

He wants Downing Street so very badly and I'll wager you a hundred notes that he will
stitch up the electorate by doing a deal with the SNP. By which time, of course, it'll be too late!

By the way - he's also in self denial about the the Brown-Balls over-spend in the last Labour government.
Denied it thrice on Question Time a couple of nights ago ... and that was after the cock crowed!

So the question therefore follows:
Would you trust someone who denies the very existence of Brown's horrible over-spend
and subsequent  disastrous over-borrowing from the IMF (which, incidentally  
began immediately BEFORE the financial crash) to handle the UK's (finally) balanced economy?

I think I've mentioned elsewhere on this thread ... I have not, as yet, decided on who will get my solitary vote.
I do however know who I will not be voting for - on the basis of his lies and more lies and his denials.
Eddie - the extremely wealthy pseudo-socialist from Highgate - Milliband!
At least theOld Etonian is seeking an outright Conservative majority in order to form a legit government,
and not a cobbled-together one ... he won't get it of course - but there again, he isn't going to lose sleep
over losing 41 seats to the SNP to the north of Hadrian's Wall!

My apologies for the seven lengthy paragraphs reply!

[lardbucket]

Perhaps this is a massive case of NSR, but I'm struggling to identify a sentence, let alone a paragraph.

Was this deliberate?

[PeterCS]

Considering how on top of propaganda they've been in general during this government the Tories' campaign has been so woeful and badly judged a part of me is wondering if they're deliberately trying to chuck this election (as quietly as possible of course) because they suspect we're due another big crash in the next five years (nothing that caused the last one has really been fixed) and would rather not be in charge while it happens. Either that or they just genuinely are so out of touch they think this is actually the best way to get into power.

That thought occurred to me more with Farage, and his many ham-fistedly self-inflicted wounds during the campaign! ....

I think it's more the "dead cat" strategy that BoJo explained as a key tactic of Lynton Crosby's strategy.

(Anybody not heard what the "dead cat" is? No? Good. Let's move on then, to its application ... )

It amounts to causing misdirection, bewilderment and distraction in the Election campaign.

The bottom line being that oppositions are denigrated, ridiculed and backbitten to the point where confused voters think (a) "What the hell is really going on? I can't work it out!", b) "There's "no smoke without fire" with all them stories and rumours and sleaze allegations that's going round about the other parties and individuals (yes, isn't he ugly!!!) - not sure I can rely on any of them tbh" .... and the intended clincher, the grand payoff:

c)  "All politicians and all parties are basically completely the bloody same, cynical corrupt rotten manipulators, all in it for themselves, etc. - so I might as well just follow suit, look after my own short-term economic interests - and bugger everything and everyone else to hell."

That last is a classic ploy in the electioneering of of the more grimly-inclined Conservative parties and politicians worldwide through the last 30 years:

If you pitch across the political spectrum as bleakly pessimistic a view of society, civilisation, human nature, etc as possible, then (it is calculated) enough people will sooner or later give up and plump for their own profit (narrowly-perceived, short-term, but under-informed even about their own longer-term and the society's interests, and as far as humanly possible, free of conscience too). And so vote for your party.

Of course you also have to throw in quite a lot of (big, vague, burstable, expedient) boasts & promises, so as to not sound like a cynic or manipulator, .....

Pack that all together, and you've essentially got Crosby Productions.The rest depends on constant uniform-message repetition & bombardment (hence the clicking of heels to "commanding performance" etc. - see above), until enough of the electorate either believes it, or at least gives up working it out, sees a conflagration of imaginary fire in the dense smokescreens created, .... and in this case, votes for Crosby's employer, in sufficient numbers to return them to power.

[PeterCS]

Merls - provided I am given (enough) strength ... I'll answer you later.

It can be shorter this time, because I can't pick up all of your scattergun shrapnel pieces, and will have to focus on a few key points.

On the basis I've tried to lay down above.

[Sponsored content]